The method of determining whether food additives exceed the permissible standards of public notice given by the Ministry of Health and Welfare based on Article 6 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act.

Whether sulfur content added to food exceeds the permissible level of notification of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs based on Article 6 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and violates Article 6 (4) of the same Act shall be determined according to the quantity of sulfur content contained in the above food itself. In cases of washing it in water or living together, the determination of whether it has been violated shall not be made according to the quantity of additives remaining after the remaining quantity.

Articles 6(1) and 6(4) of the Food Sanitation Act

Defendant

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 85No155 delivered on June 28, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to Article 2(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, the term "food" means all kinds of food except for taking as medicine. According to the records, since the Food Sanitation Act, which is manufactured and sold by the defendant, belongs to a kind of food that is processed and manufactured by using food as natural materials. Thus, it is justifiable to view that the Food Sanitation Act, which the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the court of first instance, corresponds to food under the Food Sanitation Act under the Food Sanitation Act. In addition, as long as the Food Sanitation Act manufactured and sold by the defendant constitutes food as above, the issue of violation of Article 6(4) of the Food Sanitation Act should be determined according to the quantity of sulfur or bitium contained in the above "Food Notification Act" in itself, and it is not unreasonable to determine whether the added food remains in the case of washing or remaining life as small materials, but to determine whether the added food remains in accordance with the quantity of food products under the Food Sanitation Act. Thus, it is not a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and it is not a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, but a violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju